openpanel_list_funnels

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether the operation is read-only (though implied), whether results are paginated, what the return structure looks like, or any rate limiting concerns. The phrase 'List all' is insufficient behavioral detail for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the verb. However, the inclusion of '[UNIFIED]' appears to be metadata leakage or a tag that doesn't serve the AI agent's understanding, preventing a score of 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complete absence of annotation hints, output schema, and schema field descriptions, the two-sentence description is insufficiently complete. It fails to document the `site` parameter or provide any hint about the structure of the returned funnel data, leaving critical gaps for tool invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining both parameters. While 'for a project' loosely maps to `project_id`, the `site` parameter is completely undocumented—no indication of expected format (URL, UUID, slug) or its relationship to the project. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare schema types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description provides a clear verb (List) and resource (funnels), and the phrase 'all funnels' implicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools like `openpanel_get_funnel` (single retrieval) and `openpanel_compare_funnels` (comparison). However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unexplained cruft that slightly dilutes clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `openpanel_get_funnel` (for specific funnel details) or `openpanel_compare_funnels`. The description merely restates the operation without contextual prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.